House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I believe in taking a positive approach to politics. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a good principle, and in that spirit, I welcome the Bill. However, I must confess that it is a pretty lukewarm welcome, because this Bill is not a really significant or radical step. Effectively, it is a tweak. We could call it a bit of glorified admin, because it tidies up a thread that has been hanging since 1999. It does not tackle several of the other inequalities and inconsistencies in the composition of the House of Lords. Members across this House have highlighted some of those today, such as the presence of the bishops and the appointment of life peers, so while I welcome the Bill, there is huge room for improvement.
House of Lords reform is absolutely long overdue. Three hours or so ago, somebody referenced Asquith in 1911; we have been waiting a really long time. When the Minister introduced the Bill several hours ago, he referenced the next steps in the reform process, and I very much hope we do not have to wait 25 years—or, indeed, 113 years —to find out what those next steps are. Reform is also widely supported, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) just said, and it is essential to improve the functioning of our democracy. By the way, there are many other ways in which we could improve the functioning of our democracy, but let us focus on House of Lords reform today. When the Paymaster General introduced the Bill, he spoke about a matter of principle for a Government committed to fairness and equality. He described going step by step in the direction of reform. I challenge him to tell us what the next steps are, to show us his workings and his road map, and to assure us that we will not have to wait 25 or 113 years.
Ellie Chowns
I will not give way, and I will explain why. Like many other Members, I have been waiting and bobbing for hours to have a chance to speak—apart from the moment when I left for a prearranged meeting with the Speaker. Several Members on both sides of the House have intervened frequently, thus putting others further down the speaking list. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would like to speak.
We need to know the next steps in House of Lords reform. I agree that these are questions of principle. The issue is not the individuals who currently serve in the House of Lords, many of whom are hard-working and experienced, and bring a lot of expertise and effort. That is not the point. The point is that unelected lawmakers should not be a thing. People who make laws should be elected. That is what democracy is about. It is a fundamental principle, and I find it extraordinary that the Bill does not adopt it. The Government are sometimes a little selective in applying the principles for which they nail their colours to the mast.
On the principle of unelected people not making laws, why do we still have bishops and life peers? There is no other walk of life in which someone would be appointed to a role for life. We should not have that in our Parliament. I challenge the Paymaster General to use the Government’s huge and disproportionate majority —disproportionate given that it is based on a minority of votes—to take forward the principles of fairness and equality, and to get rid of not just the unfair and unequal hereditary principle, but the unfair and unequal principle of representing certain religions and not others, or of representing any religion. I challenge the Government to get rid of the unfair and unequal principle of giving political appointees life peerages. Will the Paymaster General do that? Will he also set out steps for replacing the House of Lords with an elected house of citizens? Will he take steps to introduce a fair electoral system for this Parliament, so that every vote cast in this country has equal weight?
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, and we are not doing it alone. We are working with our allies in relation to it— last week, I spoke to G7 allies about it, and we speak constantly to the US about it—because we need to de-escalate across the region. We have seen escalation in recent days and weeks, and all sides need to pull back from the brink.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On behalf of the Green party, I associate myself with the remarks made by the Prime Minister and others in the House in remembrance of all those who lost their lives and were taken hostage in the horrific terrorist attacks on 7 October last year. One of those was Hayim Katsman, who was murdered by Hamas in Kibbutz Holit. His brother Noy had his words included in a collection of speeches and eulogies published today by Standing Together. Noy said this of Hayim:
“I have no doubt that even in the face of Hamas’ people that murdered him, in the face of their extreme right wing beliefs, he would still call out against killing and violence of innocent people. Here, too, he would be empathetic to pain and oppression.”
Those are powerful words. In that spirit, I express my continued and deep concern at the disproportionate response of Israel to the attacks on 7 October and the extent to which that has perpetuated pain, oppression and the killing of innocent people. In recent days, that response has resulted in an escalation of deadly violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about commitment to de-escalation. Does he agree that an urgent ceasefire both between Israel and Hezbollah and in Gaza is essential to resolving the conflict?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member read out some powerful words, which will have been heard across the House. Yes, de-escalation is absolutely needed at the moment as the region stands on the brink.